» Articles » PMID: 38783525

Utility of the Morgan Fingerprint in Structure-Based Virtual Ligand Screening

Overview
Journal J Phys Chem B
Specialty Chemistry
Date 2024 May 24
PMID 38783525
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In modern drug discovery, virtual ligand screening (VLS) is frequently applied to identify possible hits before experimental testing and refinement due to its cost-effective nature for large compound libraries. For decades, efforts have been devoted to developing VLS methods with high accuracy. These include the state-of-the-art FINDSITE suite of approaches FINDSITE, FRAGSITE, and FRAGSITE2 and the meta version FRAGSITE that were developed in our lab. These methods combine ligand homology modeling (LHM), traditional ligand similarity methods, and more recently machine learning approaches to rank ligands and have proven to be superior to most recent deep learning and large language model-based approaches. Here, we describe further improvements to our previous best methods by combining the Morgan fingerprint (MF) with the originally used PubChem fingerprint and FP2 fingerprint. We then benchmarked FINDSITE, FRAGSITE, FRAGSITE2, and the composite meta-approach FRAGSITE. On the 102 target DUD-E set, the 1% enrichment factor (EF) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) of FRAGSITE increased from 42.0/0.59 to 47.6/0.72. This 0.72 AUPR is significantly better than that of the state-of-the-art deep learning-based method DenseFS's AUPR of 0.443. An independent test on the 81 targets DEKOIS2.0 set shows that EF/AUPR increases from 18.3/0.520 to 23.1/0.683. An ablation investigation shows that the MF contributes to most of the improvement of all four approaches. Thus, the MF is a useful addition to structure-based VLS.

Citing Articles

Search for Correlations Between the Results of the Density Functional Theory and Hartree-Fock Calculations Using Neural Networks and Classical Machine Learning Algorithms.

Normatov S, Nesterov P, Aliev T, Timralieva A, Novikov A, Skorb E ACS Omega. 2025; 10(6):5919-5933.

PMID: 39989831 PMC: 11840621. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.4c09861.


Deep learning based predictive modeling to screen natural compounds against TNF-alpha for the potential management of rheumatoid arthritis: Virtual screening to comprehensive in silico investigation.

Nabi T, Riyed T, Ornob A PLoS One. 2024; 19(12):e0303954.

PMID: 39636801 PMC: 11620472. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303954.


Exploring putative enteric methanogenesis inhibitors using molecular simulations and a graph neural network.

Aryee R, Mohammed N, Dey S, Arunraj B, Nadendla S, Sajeevan K bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39345548 PMC: 11429904. DOI: 10.1101/2024.09.16.613350.


Deep Learning for Protein-Ligand Docking: Are We There Yet?.

Morehead A, Giri N, Liu J, Neupane P, Cheng J ArXiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38827451 PMC: 11142318.

References
1.
Kim S, Chen J, Cheng T, Gindulyte A, He J, He S . PubChem 2019 update: improved access to chemical data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018; 47(D1):D1102-D1109. PMC: 6324075. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky1033. View

2.
Keiser M, Roth B, Armbruster B, Ernsberger P, Irwin J, Shoichet B . Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat Biotechnol. 2007; 25(2):197-206. DOI: 10.1038/nbt1284. View

3.
Bauer M, Ibrahim T, Vogel S, Boeckler F . Evaluation and optimization of virtual screening workflows with DEKOIS 2.0--a public library of challenging docking benchmark sets. J Chem Inf Model. 2013; 53(6):1447-62. DOI: 10.1021/ci400115b. View

4.
Jain A . Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(4):499-511. DOI: 10.1021/jm020406h. View

5.
Bernstein F, Koetzle T, Williams G, Meyer Jr E, Brice M, Rodgers J . The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol. 1977; 112(3):535-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-2836(77)80200-3. View